Frustrating Dilemma

So this year while I've been a fellow with the TFA, I've been thinking a lot about "leadership" and what it means. We invite many "leaders" to come out to our campus and speak to us about "leadership" and we read a lot of books and discuss many ideas, great and small, all of which have to do with "leadership."

I was talking to a friend today about how his Dad is so unhappy with his job, but it's one of the highest, most honorable positions in the country. Yet it causes him to be away from his family and the town where he grew up and lived all his life and he doesn't get to interact with people like he used to, but he's affecting peoples' lives more than he ever could have before and he's being a good leader and he's a great person for the job.

Where do we draw the line? If the world, our society, whatever, if life is set up so that being a leader of thousands/millions is a lousy, depressing job, why don't we change it and localize? Does being a leader nationally or internationally mean that you have to forsake family and friends and the comforts of a life where you know people locally, can be a member of a church and other civic organizations?

More on that some other time. That's just what I've been thinking about lately. Rage against the machine!